Police received a complaint about a suspicious vehicle. A truck matching the description was found parked in a private driveway with the engine running and the lights on.
D was asleep in the driver's seat with an open can of beer between his legs. There were several empties in the truck.
The police officer awoke D. D did not know where he was and smelled strongly of alcohol. His speech was slurred. D had an alcohol restriction on his license.
D was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
Procedural History:
Lower court found D guilty.
MD Appellate Court affirmed, D guilty.
Issues:
Is a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence alone not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence?
Holding/Rule:
A conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Reasoning:
There are only two unstrained and likely inferences arising from the circumstances.
One is that D arrived at the driveway from somewhere else.
The other is that D was about to leave for somewhere else.
The first is consistent with his guilt, the second with innocence.
One does not typically drink in the house and then carry empties to the car.
The circumstances make the first inference more likely.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
The totality of the circumstances was inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
